RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:		DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03991

 				COUNSEL:    

				HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.	He be reinstated into the Air Force and receive full back pay 
from his date of separation.

2.	In the alternative, his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release 
or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect the 
following:  

	Block 25, Separation Authority, be changed to honorable. 
	Block 26, Separation Code, be changed to MBK (Completion of 
              Active Duty).
	Block 27, Reentry Code, be changed to 1.
	Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, be changed to
              Completion of Active Duty.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The applicant contends his commander did not fairly assess his 
entire enlistment when determining his characterization of 
service.  A review of his enlisted performance reports show he 
maintained a superior level of performance throughout his entire 
service record, which began in September 2005.  His record 
demonstrates he clearly exceeded in areas such as primary and 
additional duties, training requirements and standards, conduct, 
character and military bearing.

He believes there are numerous; justifiable reasons his 
discharge should be reviewed.  He received good marks on 
conduct, received several awards and decorations while serving, 
he has combat experience and his ability to serve was impaired 
by various personal issues as well as psychiatric problems.  The 
evidence clearly indicates that applicant discharge was unjust 
and erroneous.

The administrative process to determine eligibility for 
reenlistment or characterization of discharge is an assessment 
of an individual’s enlistment of a sufficient period of time to 
make an affirmative determination that the person served 
honorably.  He was not afforded an unbiased review of his total 
honorable service.

On 23 May 2011, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for 
misconduct.  The LOR stated he brought a bottle of alcohol into 
the munitions storage area with the intent of drinking while on 
duty.  However, as a result of this incident, he was referred 
back to ADAPT who subsequently diagnosed him again as alcohol 
dependent and referred him to ADAPT Tier 1 treatment.

In June 2011, the ADAPT Program Manager determined the applicant 
failed treatment by stating his failure to abstain from alcohol 
while in the program and his dishonesty with staff had 
compromised his success in the ADAPT program.  He was separated 
on 21 July 2011, for misconduct – minor disciplinary 
infractions.  This discharge, to include his character of 
service, is not consistent with his overall service.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 13 September 2005.  

On 22 June 2011, he was notified of his commander’s intent to 
discharge him from the Air Force for minor disciplinary 
infractions and failure in Alcohol Abuse Treatment.  
Specifically, he failed the ADAPT treatment program; he received 
an LOR for bringing a bottle of alcohol to work with the 
intention of drinking, and he received an Article 15 for 
operating a passenger vehicle while drunk.

The applicant acknowledged his commanders intent, his right to 
be represented by counsel and to submit statements on his 
behalf.  After consulting counsel, he submitted a statement for 
his commander’s consideration.  On 29 June 2011, the staff judge 
advocate found the discharge legally sufficient.  The commander 
directed the applicant be separated for minor disciplinary 
infractions with a general (under honorable conditions) 
discharge.  

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial.  The applicant’s record shows he 
received two Letters of Reprimand and one Article 15, UCMJ.  The 
applicant also failed the ADAPT program during his enlistment.  
Under AFI 36-3208, Airmen are subject to discharge if they are 
in a program of treatment for alcohol abuse and fail to 
successfully complete the program due to inability, refusal to 
participate in the program, or unwillingness to cooperate.  The 
applicant’s commander determined the applicants continued 
presence in the unit was prejudicial to good order and 
discipline and recommended he be discharged.  The record also 
reflected the applicant was counseled on numerous occasions for 
his behavior and afforded an opportunity to overcome his 
deficiencies.  

Based on the documentation in the applicant’s master personnel 
records the discharge to include his characterization of service 
and separation code was consistent with the procedural and 
substantive requirements of the discharge instructions and was 
within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant 
did not proved evidence of an error or injustice in the 
discharge processing.

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial.  The applicant was involuntarily 
discharged for misconduct on 21 July 2011, with an under 
honorable conditions discharge after completing 5 years, 10 
months and 9 days of service.  He received an RE code of 2B – 
Separated with a general or under other than honorable 
conditions discharge, based on his general discharge.

The applicant’s RE code is required per AFI 36-2606, 
Reenlistments in the USAF, based on his involuntary discharge 
with general (under honorable conditions) character of service.  
He does not provide any proof of an error or injustice with 
regard to his RE code.  

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 10 January 2014, for review and comment within 
30 days (Exhibit E).  As of this date, this office has received 
no response.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by 
existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice 
that occurred during the discharge process.  Based on the 
available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was 
consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge 
regulation and within the commander's discretionary authority. 
The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, no evidence 
has been provided which would lead us to believe the 
characterization of the service was contrary to the provisions 
of the governing regulation, or unduly harsh.  Therefore, in 
view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting the 
relief sought.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that 
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 
that the application will only be reconsidered upon the 
submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered 
with this application.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-03991 in Executive Session on 3 June 2014, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	
The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Aug 14, w/atchs. 
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 28 Oct 13.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 5 Dec 13. 
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jan 14.